What a Way to End

     Angry Black White Boy ends in a manner that isn't very stereotypical of a book that otherwise follows the hero's journey. I would go as far as to say it is quite the outlier. I've always been an avid reader I have to say of all the books I've read that follow the hero's journey narrative almost none end with the death of the protagonist. More often if there is a death it will be the death of a friend or a love interest. However, I can think of one book in which the protagonist dies at the end and looking back at that book it shares some themes with Angry Black White Boy.
     The first book is called The Midnight Star and it is actually the final book in a trilogy called the young elites. The trilogy begins in a similar way to Angry Black White Boy. While part of this simply has to do with the fact that they both follow the hero's journey, I think it goes a little further than that. The premise of the trilogy is that a plague swept through the nation killing any adult that got it and giving life long markings to any children who survived it. Some of those children then developed powers while others didn't. The ones who did become known as the young elites and the government created an inquisition to find and kill them all. As a result, any child with markings from the plague gets treated horribly by most people. The main character, Adelina, is someone who got the plague and got powers. She ends up joining a group of people like her who seek to overthrow the government and stop the injustice. Thinking about it, the people she joined up with were very similar to Andre and Nique. They were skeptical about her at first but later more or less grew to trust her. Their goals were also similar to Macon and his group's goals with both groups of people wanting to end some form of injustice. While the methods they chose were different I still find it interesting that the pushing force behind those methods was the same.
     It is at this point that I think the similarities really start getting interesting. Like Macon, Adelina goes too far with her goals. Take Macon's Day of Apology as his example. The idea behind it to get white people thinking about their race and the privilege that comes with it was a good idea but he implemented in a way that went too far and didn't accomplish his goal. Adelina ends up completely overthrowing the government and institutes a dictatorship with herself as the leader. Once again the idea of overthrowing a bad government isn't bad but becoming a dictator is going too far. Interestingly part of her process of becoming the dictator was betraying the group she found. I thought this was interesting because it meant that when both Macon and Adelina didn't achieve what they were trying to they betrayed their friends. That brings me back to the last book in the trilogy and what I consider to be the most important similarity. In the stories, both heroes make bad choices and become somewhat of a villain. However, in the end, they both sacrifice themselves to save someone else. Adelina gives up her life in exchange for her sisters and Macon puts his life on the line for Leo. I think that speaks to how books, where the hero makes questionable decisions, can try to redeem the character through self sacrifice.

JackJack Attack

     In the first part of the book, Jack is a hero of sorts. While it is up for debate how much he should be praised for his actions, seeing as he didn't seem to truly understand what he was doing or why he was doing it, he definitely goes through a journey that could be recognized as a traditional hero's journey. He is also a hero using the definition Grant used in A Lesson Before Dying; that a hero is somebody is does something for other people. While Jack is also unaware that he did something for Ma, his birth was very important to her well being. Before he was born she had stopped taking care of herself after a certain point but he gave her a reason to take care of herself again. Once again this brings up the question of whether or not Jack should get credit for something he didn't know he was doing but nonetheless, it is undeniable that he was doing something.
     However, this changes after they escape from Room and the fact that Jack doesn't understand why he had to play dead and get the police has its consequences. This first shows up when the police break into Room and the first thing Jack wants to do is go back to Room with Ma. This shows he fails to understand Room as a malevolent force. This becomes a problem for Ma when Jack keeps wanting to return to Room. There are several occasions when Jack brings up going back to Room and Ma tells him that they are never going back. I think what it comes down to is that Jack thought of Room as his home while Ma thought of it as a prison. While she was in Room Jack helped her, but now that she is out it seems like Jack can't help but remind her about Room. Given that I think Jack had something to do with why Ma tried to commit suicide. However, I would say the interview was more the trigger that caused it and Jack was just a slow burn added to it.

Where to Turn in the Face of Death

     Something that is thoroughly embedded in A Lesson Before Dying is the question of mortality and what can be done when you know death is inevitable. This is an especially important question within the context of Jefferson's situation because not only does he know he is going to die (more so than just the knowledge that everybody dies eventually) he also knows the specific day he is going to die. That means he has a set deadline for himself to get anything he wants to get done or for anything other people want him to get done.
     However, Jefferson is also in a situation where knowing he is going to die is empowers him to some degree at least. Because he lives in a place where barely stepping out of line could easily lead to severe punishment like death his ability to be free to do what he wants or what others want him to do is limited. But, because he is already facing the death penalty this threat has been eliminated because he no longer has to worry about punishments in the sense that he is already facing the harshest of them all. This is why he the the one who needs to step up in the book, not Grant. even though Grant is the one who has the education that allows him to do so. One good example of this is Jefferson's journal. The way he writes about how the sherriff told him to write about how good he treated him seems to undermine itself and allmost makes fun of the sherriff. There is no way Jefferson could have written that if he was just serving a time sentence because there could be severe consequences in the sherriff some how read that. So I think it is just interesting how the person who is in the position of least power, locked in a cell, actually holds the most power of all of them.

Heroic Clowns

      Thursday in class we discussed whether we found the Bundrens to be heroic of clowns. That really got me thinking. Because on the one hand, working as hard as they do to fulfill the wish of their dead mother is an inherently heroic thing to do. And in most other stories that have a parallel to that, it is solely portrayed as a heroic thing. However, in this case, the heroic aspect is undercut by two things. First of all, Addie, who is essentially the one who sent them on this quest, did it simply to get back at Anse for Darl. The other thing that undercuts the heroic aspect of their journey is the way Addie's body is being treated in the progress. Even though it was her wish, ignoring the fact that it is her revenge, they try to complete her wish to a ridiculous degree. At some point, the way her body is being treated should outway her wish. But it never does. The drag her around for days, she floats down a river, is in a burning barn, and more. This failure of accomplishing a heroic goal through effective methods really undercuts their goal.
     That's when I started to think about how often the Bundren's attempted heroics resulted in them becoming clowns because they tried to be too heroic. That isn't to say they don't have their moments in which they are solely portrayed as clowns. Those can be found throughout. One example is when Anse doesn't even remember to bring shovels to dig Addie's grave and they have to borrow some from a family that lives in the town. However, many other moments like that are driven by an urge towards heroism. Take for example the all the shenanigans with getting the new mules for the carriage. Anse is forced to give up his teeth money, Cash's money, and Jewel's horse just to get the mules. All the while he could have just borrowed them but because he thought Addie wouldn't want them to be beholden to anybody he refused to. So I think that the Bundrens are mostly clowns with a heroic goal that gets taken too far (mostly by Anse).

Oh Brother it's the Odyssey

     I'm clearly not making any wild claim here seeing as we have constantly talked about how the movie is based off the Odyssey and the fact that it is is even stated in one of the title cards at the start. That being said I just wanted to go through all of the connections that I saw as well as connections that I wasn't sure about but that I thought might be there. Also fair warning, these might not follow the plot of the movie or the Odyssey because my notes merged the two. 
     First of all, and by far the most obvious, the movie invokes the muse at the start just like the Odyssey. Soon after that, we see the three main characters escaping the chain gang, which I think is supposed to represent Calypso's island. Moving o, the next connection that I noticed was that Wash Hogwallop seemed like Melanthius because just like how Melanthius betrayed Odysseus, Wash betrayed Everett. If that's the case then Everett assumes the role of Odysseus and Pete and Delmar assume the roles of Eumaeus and Philoetius. This makes sense given the way they are portrayed in the movie. That means, assuming that the Soggy Bottom Boys match up with the four who partake in the slaughter of the suitors, that Tommy is Telemachus. Going from there I think that the KKK were the suitors. This makes sense to me for two reasons. First of all, they plan to kill Tommy like the suitors planned to killed Telemachus.  And second of all, when Everett, Pete, and Delmar they are armed qith shields and a spear (the confederate flag) just like how Odysseus and the rest are armed with spears and shields when they go to kill the suitors. Soon after that is the scene when Everett tosses the flag into the air and it heads towards the radio station man. This of course seemed to be referencing the scene where Laertes throws his spear into the air and it kills Eupeithes. 
     After all of that I've got a bunch that don't really connest in any particular way so this is basically just going to be a list. First there is Big Dan Teague who is Polyphemus. He has an eye patch, is bigger that Everett and Delmar, squashes "Pete" and uses a stick like a club. Then there are the three women in the river who are a combination of the Sirens and Circe. The entrance Everett, Pete, and Delmar with their singing like Sirens and turn Pete into toad like how Circe turned Odysseus men into pigs. Then there is Penny, who is Penelope (I don't think the name similarity is an accident) becuase she is the wife of Everett who is the Homer of the story. There is also the guy on the pump trolley who is supposed to be one of the prophets because he issues a prophecy. And last is the cop with the dog and sunglasses. However, I'm not actually sure if he has a counterpart in the Odyssey, I just thought he had a weird emphasis put on his like there was a connection.

Odysseus is a Suitor

     Something that struck me while reading book nine of the Odyssey was how horrible of a person Odysseus could be. There were multiple occasions in the one book where Odysseus did things that most heroes wouldn't have done. For example, when he ends up at the lands of the Cicones he sacks their city, kills their men, and enslaves the women as concubines. The book doesn't suggest that there is any military significance to this so it is just straight up piracy. However, what really seemed weird to me was that they were blown to that land by Zeus and since Odysseus himself said Zeus is on the side of guests, it would suggest that Zeus was trying to make Odysseus's crew guests there. This explains why Zeus was mad at them and why he gave them bad luck in their fight.
     But beyond that, I think it shows something a little more important. It draws a connection between Odysseus, the hero of the story, and the suitors, some of the antagonists of the story. For one, both show up where they don't belong. Odysseus is trying to get to his home but instead ends up at the Cicones and the suitors should probably be at their houses but instead, they are all at Odysseus's house. For two, both commit acts of piracy or similar to piracy. Odysseus raids the town and takes all their wealth while the suitors are at his house taking all of his wealth. And lastly, both try to take the wives of the men who are gone. In Odysseus's case he succeeds and enslaves the women and we see the suitors still trying to convince Penelope to marry them and forget Odysseus. I think it is interesting that so many parallels are drawn especially considering the Telemachus has grown up hating the suitors while wondering who his dad is and it seems like he's going to find out his dad acts basically like the suitors. 

Personal Reflection

     One hero narrative that really has had an impact on me is The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The Name of the Wind follows the hero of the story Kvothe, but in a way that is slightly different from most hero narratives. Instead of simply following the hero from the beginning of their journey, The Name of the Wind starts with the Hero's journey already over for Kvothe. He is known as a hero by many people and yet he chooses to hide his identity and live his life as the owner of a tavern. Eventually, a scribe comes to town and convinces Kvothe to tell his story. This results in a dual story where Kvothe is both telling the story of his past while dealing with new problems arising in the present. Something that struck me about that part of the story was that the scribe really had to work hard to convince Kvothe to tell his story. That mixed with the fact that Kvothe was living under the radar despite his hero status was revealing. It showed me that he didn't want to look back because there was some aspect of his journey to becoming a hero that he was ashamed of. And while I certainly am not on some heroic quest it still made me think that whatever I ended up doing I never wanted to look back and hate the choices I made to that degree. 
     Another thing that stood out to me about The Name of the Wind was the fact that Kvothe is seems to be given the chance at redemption. I say seems because the series isn't concluded yet but the build-up suggests that Kvothe will have to once again become some sort of hero. I liked this because it made me think about a sort of comeback story. Like if I dindn't do something right the first time I could always try harder to do better the next time.
     The last thing that really made me think was actually a sort of character in the book. It was basically a demon tree that showed anyone who got close to it a horrible vision of the future. That person would then try with all their might to prevent that future but in the end that would just end up being the cause of the horrible future they saw. I feel like this has really had an impact on what I do, becuase I also don't like to go too far because I often feel like it actually make the problem worse.